User talk:Bean23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#What does "only" mean?

I've reverted your edits regarding console exclusivity, the reasoning can be found in the link above. The category was never intended, and has never been used for just showing console exclusivity. The editor which claimed that it was to show console exclusivity was either misinformed, or forgot the PC platforms. You'll see that the parent category is Category:Single-platform software, implying only one platform. - hahnchen 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion linked above. You seem to think that by only focusing on pure system exclusivity over console exclusivity, we're limiting the categories use. Absolutely not, I've already mentioned the use of the category, and it has never been intended to show trivial console exclusivity, no matter what the category actually said. But console exclusives are pathetic meaningless marketing talk, no one actually cared about console exclusivity until it cost too much to buy pure system exclusivity. We also have time exclusives now and more marketing claptrap like exclusive content. We ignore all this crap. An exclusive is an exclusive. - hahnchen 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Also check out the Playstation 3-only category and it's discussion page. A Playstation Network Game can also be an PS3 only game. An XBox Live Arcade game can also be XBox360 only game. PSN and XBLA are only a means of distribution/publishing.--Stef Nighthawk 19:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be a means of enforcing marketing speak from video-game companies. An 360-Exclusive game should only be classified as such IF it is not available anywhere else, including on the PC. Whether the PC is considered in the same class of hardware as a video game console is irrelevant - if a software title is available on both, it is not exclusive to the console. Making a distinction between "console exclusivity" and "platform exclusivity" is buying into marketing hype, and it's technically incorrect. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to improve this category as a resource material. Unfortunately, I don't have the technical expertise yet to reform the category to have a separate list of exclusives that include PC exclusives. Many people when looking to compare exclusives between the consoles are interested in seeing these titles that are also on the PC. One of the advantages of developing for the Xbox 360 is that it is fairly easy to port games between the PC and the Xbox 360. In fact, the development environment is performed on the PC. That is why there are a ton of games that are console exclusives but not platform exclusives. The changes were made with the definition that has been in place for all of the -only categories until they were changed to support Hahnchen's agenda of not making these categories about console exclusivity, so my changes were actually correct when originally made. Please see the definition of video game consoles. The name of the category Xbox 360-only is incorrect though. Would it be possible to get the help of expert editors to create a new category named Xbox 360 console exclusive? I would also like to edit it so that people can simply search Xbox 360 exclusives to find this information. I'm wanting to improve this resource. I do not have a "marketing" agenda. What we have now is information that is organized in a way that is not completely correct and thus people will find this information through other resources. . . especially when obvious and big-name games that people will expect to see like Gears of War are excluded. I think that Hahnchen's changes will lead people to dismiss the resource because it will appear incorrect to them. If you can help me make it more correct by creating this distinction, the I would appreciate it.Bean23 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think your effort is in good faith, and I agree with the spirit of what you're wanting to do. I posted a reply to your comment over on the CVGProj talk page. Lemme know what you think. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN3

You may wish to see the report against you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Bean23_reported_by_User:Giggy_.28Result:.29. Giggy UCP 23:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a note there saying that we're currently discussing the issue in CVGProj. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR and talk pages

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Star Trek: Legacy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.
You can find Star Trek: Legacy's talk page here.
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, we're now discussing the issue, and I believe we're coming up with a solution. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't delete Talk Page content

Please don't delete Talk-Page content, Bean, especially when notices of inappropriate behavior are posted. That is a violation of WP policy and can get you in trouble. We're trying to help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How do I report Hahnchen? I feel that what I did was appropriate to the category definition before he changed it. I was fixing vandalism based on the category definition before he redefined it.Bean23 05:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What is there to report? While I don't think a full consensus has been reached on that category, Hahnchen isn't then only one who feels that the category was being misused. I agree with his edits and went in to clarify them. The only two things Hahnchen did wrong that I could see were to participate in a revert war with you (I warned both of you against that), and to get a little "loose-fingered" with his language (which I also warned him about). Otherwise, I don't honestly see anything wrong with his edits.
The fact is, the original category definition was unclear and confusing, the way it was being used. The name alone, "360-only", at least implies if not expresses that a game has only been released on the 360, and nowhere else. To put PC games into that category misuses the category based on what seems to be the generally understood definition of "exclusive". So to remove games that don't fit that definition is not vandalism, nor is it to clarify the definition. I also tried to start discussion on the category talk page, but the discussion ended up happening both here and in the CVGProj page instead. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I should clarify the deleting-talk-page thing: After a reasonable amount of time has passed and current issues can reasonably be considered resolved or abandoned, feel free to archive your Talk page. I go one step further with mine and delete obsolete notices like Orphaned Fair-Use Image (where an admin is telling me an image is about to be deleted) once the notices no longer apply. However, any user-conduct notices, especially from admins, should stay on your main Talk page while active, and can be archived once they're stale. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
He started the revert-war that was based on valid categories that he redefined. I feel that his behavior was inappropriate. If you disagree, feel free to speak up for him in the report.
Suit yourself. I think you'd be wasting your time filing a report - it's usually far better to take this up with the user directly. Have you tried talking to Hahnchen in his talk page? I am helping out on Wikiquette Alerts, an informal mediation group here on WP, and I could help mediate between you two. If you do decide to file a behavior report, let me know where, and I'll weigh in as appropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Dungeon Hero

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Dungeon Hero meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Hero. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)